Post by generalvikus on Aug 18, 2019 11:53:06 GMT -6
Hey guys,
Before the release of RTW 2, I posted an interest check for the revival of the old play - by - council game, and received some affirmative responses. In the intervening months, things have got in the way, and I figured that it would be best to give the community time to become acquainted with the game, and develop the varied schools of thought that make the concept of a play - by - council game so uniquely well suited for this series. Presently I feel comfortable that I am in a position to host the game, if there is still the player base to support it, so if you're interested, please let me know.
Like the last game, this one will have its own dedicated forum, and unlike the last game, there will also be a Discord channel: discord.gg/uGFxzNU
For the information of those who were not around for the first (abortive) attempt, here's a link to the forum: rtwplaybycouncil.createaforum.com/index.php
The idea of a play - by - council game is to play the game co-cooperatively, with players providing oversight and instruction, to which the host - yours truly - must adhere to the best of his ability.
The game is played in rounds of variable length, perhaps lasting as long as a year or as short as a month depending on the circumstances. After a round has been played, I will write up a report on the course of events, after which there will be a period of debate, during which amendments are proposed for the round's ballot, and finally of decision, during which all players may cast their votes on each issue. Here is one example ballot from the last game:
The last game featured an extensive division of labour. Responsibility for strategic oversight (such as providing standing orders and contingency plans for the conduct of battles, and managing force levels) was divided between several theatre commanders, each of whom had responsibility for certain strategic regions. The design board was responsible for debating and issuing requirements for the ship design competitions, in which all players were free to participate. The board of construction was responsible for proposing build programmes. Every player was free to participate in any and all activities, taking on as many or as few roles as he desired.
(Since it is perhaps the least self - explanatory role mentioned here, here's an example of what a theatre commander might get up to - a report presented in the Round 2 discussion by aeson regarding the situation of his Central Command in light of increasing tensions with Italy; note that the elements of roleplay here were spontaneous, though not at all unwelcome!)
As the first game suffered from a lengthy set - up process which killed a lot of its momentum, I would like to specify the following, unless of course there are any strong objections:
The game will be played on very large fleet size with historical resources and standard technology; the fleet size is selected in order to maximise the opportunities for ships to be designed, construction programmes to be debated, battle-orders to be drawn up, and so on.
We will play as either the Royal Navy or United States Navy, again to maximise the scope of the game in terms of design and construction, and to provide the greatest variety of theatre commands for players to adopt.
We will play with an auto - generated legacy fleet, in order to side - step the arduous set - up process of the last game.
I would personally like to use seawolf 's excellent (and arguably mandatory) higher / realistic speeds mod, and I'd be open to the idea of running a 1920 start with his equally excellent Historical Legacy Fleets mod.
So, if you're interested in joining the game, please place your vote for the following ballots:
Navy Poll: CLOSED
strawpoll.com/9pse6s9f
Start Date Poll: CLOSED
strawpoll.com/3sdhs55s
Higher / Realistic Speeds Mod: CLOSED
strawpoll.com/dwr833ay
And please also let me know if you'd like to join the Design Board, Construction Board, or the Theatre Command roster (the assignment of commands will obviously have to wait until the nation is chosen.) And, if you have any suggestions for the formation of an entirely new committee, feel free - the more the merrier!
Before the release of RTW 2, I posted an interest check for the revival of the old play - by - council game, and received some affirmative responses. In the intervening months, things have got in the way, and I figured that it would be best to give the community time to become acquainted with the game, and develop the varied schools of thought that make the concept of a play - by - council game so uniquely well suited for this series. Presently I feel comfortable that I am in a position to host the game, if there is still the player base to support it, so if you're interested, please let me know.
Like the last game, this one will have its own dedicated forum, and unlike the last game, there will also be a Discord channel: discord.gg/uGFxzNU
For the information of those who were not around for the first (abortive) attempt, here's a link to the forum: rtwplaybycouncil.createaforum.com/index.php
The idea of a play - by - council game is to play the game co-cooperatively, with players providing oversight and instruction, to which the host - yours truly - must adhere to the best of his ability.
The game is played in rounds of variable length, perhaps lasting as long as a year or as short as a month depending on the circumstances. After a round has been played, I will write up a report on the course of events, after which there will be a period of debate, during which amendments are proposed for the round's ballot, and finally of decision, during which all players may cast their votes on each issue. Here is one example ballot from the last game:
Construction Programs
Current Monthly Budget: + 2,496,803
Current Construction Budget: - 15,931,212
Vote Here: strawpoll.com/389wah79
The Vikus Plan:
June 1900: 10 x DD, Derwent Class: 2,328,750
June 1900: Base Construction;
1. Weiheiwai - Northeast Asia
2. Bermuda - NA East
3. Jamaica - Caribbean
4. Trinidad - Caribbean
5. New Brunswick - NA East
6. Nova Scotia - NA East
Cost: 14,400,000
December 1900: 10 x CL, Calliope Class: 14,414,440
Argument in Favor: The goal of this program is to address our shortage of light forces and expand our base infrastructure while retaining maximum flexibility in the future by ensuring that new funds are freed up as soon as possible. When current construction is completed, we will be behind most nations in destroyer numbers. Additionally, though the three Calliope class CLs currently under construction will make the balance of cruisers more favorable to us than it is at present, (we are currently outstripped in numbers and approximately matched in tonnage by the USN) we will still be unable to concentrate an adequate number of cruisers in a main theater of war without denuding our trade protection forces. For an in-depth analysis of this situation, please refer to this post by Dorn: rtwplaybycouncil.createaforum.com/construction-board/construction-board-conference-round-2-january-june-1900/?message=233
Furthermore, it has been generally agreed that base expansion is required across the board, and so Oaktree's recommendations for base construction have been adopted.
The 10 destroyers laid down in June 1900 will almost completely consume our current surplus of 2.4 million. In 6 months, when all ships currently under construction save for one battleship have been completed, 10 new cruisers will be laid down in line with Dorn's requirements. This will cost 14.4 million, compared to the extra 13.6 million which will become available in December 1900 due to completed construction. This will put us at a slight deficit, however, our current reserve of 20 million will easily absorb this, since even after the base construction program we will still have approximately 5.6 million left in the bank. In 8 months, two months after the commencement of the main part of the program, the destroyers will be completed, allowing us to re-assess the situation and meet any new challenges that should arise in the meantime.
The Oaktree Plan:
June 1900: 2 x CL, Calliope Class: 2,882,888
June 1900: Base Construction;
1. Weiheiwai - Northeast Asia
2. Bermuda - NA East
3. Jamaica - Caribbean
4. Trinidad - Caribbean
5. New Brunswick - NA East
Cost: 12,000,000
December 1900: 2 x CL, Calliope Class: 2,882,888
December 1900: 8 x DD, Derwent Class: 1,863,000
December 1900: Base expansion, Nova Scotia: 2,400,000
Argument in Favor:
Additional two Calliope-class CL and eight Derwent-class DD to be started in late 1900. Intention for the cruisers is as above. Intention for the destroyers is to provide additional screening elements for battleships and armored cruisers nearing completion, or for splitting of destroyer forces in case an incursion into another sea zone is desired.
Beyond that the goal is to provide for a monetary reserve and retain flexibility for developments. (Which the Vikus Plan does as well, so we're taking slightly different approaches towards the same goal. More DDs now and then a large potential CL build at the end of the year can probably work as well, though it does tie up funds for the 1901-02 period more than I would like.)
Current Monthly Budget: + 2,496,803
Current Construction Budget: - 15,931,212
Vote Here: strawpoll.com/389wah79
The Vikus Plan:
June 1900: 10 x DD, Derwent Class: 2,328,750
June 1900: Base Construction;
1. Weiheiwai - Northeast Asia
2. Bermuda - NA East
3. Jamaica - Caribbean
4. Trinidad - Caribbean
5. New Brunswick - NA East
6. Nova Scotia - NA East
Cost: 14,400,000
December 1900: 10 x CL, Calliope Class: 14,414,440
Argument in Favor: The goal of this program is to address our shortage of light forces and expand our base infrastructure while retaining maximum flexibility in the future by ensuring that new funds are freed up as soon as possible. When current construction is completed, we will be behind most nations in destroyer numbers. Additionally, though the three Calliope class CLs currently under construction will make the balance of cruisers more favorable to us than it is at present, (we are currently outstripped in numbers and approximately matched in tonnage by the USN) we will still be unable to concentrate an adequate number of cruisers in a main theater of war without denuding our trade protection forces. For an in-depth analysis of this situation, please refer to this post by Dorn: rtwplaybycouncil.createaforum.com/construction-board/construction-board-conference-round-2-january-june-1900/?message=233
Furthermore, it has been generally agreed that base expansion is required across the board, and so Oaktree's recommendations for base construction have been adopted.
The 10 destroyers laid down in June 1900 will almost completely consume our current surplus of 2.4 million. In 6 months, when all ships currently under construction save for one battleship have been completed, 10 new cruisers will be laid down in line with Dorn's requirements. This will cost 14.4 million, compared to the extra 13.6 million which will become available in December 1900 due to completed construction. This will put us at a slight deficit, however, our current reserve of 20 million will easily absorb this, since even after the base construction program we will still have approximately 5.6 million left in the bank. In 8 months, two months after the commencement of the main part of the program, the destroyers will be completed, allowing us to re-assess the situation and meet any new challenges that should arise in the meantime.
The Oaktree Plan:
June 1900: 2 x CL, Calliope Class: 2,882,888
June 1900: Base Construction;
1. Weiheiwai - Northeast Asia
2. Bermuda - NA East
3. Jamaica - Caribbean
4. Trinidad - Caribbean
5. New Brunswick - NA East
Cost: 12,000,000
December 1900: 2 x CL, Calliope Class: 2,882,888
December 1900: 8 x DD, Derwent Class: 1,863,000
December 1900: Base expansion, Nova Scotia: 2,400,000
Argument in Favor:
Additional two Calliope-class CL and eight Derwent-class DD to be started in late 1900. Intention for the cruisers is as above. Intention for the destroyers is to provide additional screening elements for battleships and armored cruisers nearing completion, or for splitting of destroyer forces in case an incursion into another sea zone is desired.
Beyond that the goal is to provide for a monetary reserve and retain flexibility for developments. (Which the Vikus Plan does as well, so we're taking slightly different approaches towards the same goal. More DDs now and then a large potential CL build at the end of the year can probably work as well, though it does tie up funds for the 1901-02 period more than I would like.)
The last game featured an extensive division of labour. Responsibility for strategic oversight (such as providing standing orders and contingency plans for the conduct of battles, and managing force levels) was divided between several theatre commanders, each of whom had responsibility for certain strategic regions. The design board was responsible for debating and issuing requirements for the ship design competitions, in which all players were free to participate. The board of construction was responsible for proposing build programmes. Every player was free to participate in any and all activities, taking on as many or as few roles as he desired.
(Since it is perhaps the least self - explanatory role mentioned here, here's an example of what a theatre commander might get up to - a report presented in the Round 2 discussion by aeson regarding the situation of his Central Command in light of increasing tensions with Italy; note that the elements of roleplay here were spontaneous, though not at all unwelcome!)
As requested, a report on the Regia Marina:
Battle Line
According to our best intelligence, the Regia Marina's two battleships - the Napoli and the Regina Margerita, both of the Napoli class - have the armament and armor to match our Howe class battleships, but are somewhat smaller and two knots slower. A large tertiary battery of 3" guns should make it difficult to successfully execute torpedo boat attacks against these vessels, though our Derwent class torpedo boat destroyers are not particularly well suited to carrying out such attacks anyways.
Two additional battleships of a new class (Benedetto Brin), specifications unknown, are under construction and expected to commission some time in 1901. Best guess is that these are in essence repeats of the existing Napoli class battleships, though the reputedly lower displacement suggests that some corners were cut - possibly a lighter secondary battery or slightly thinner armor.
First Class Cruisers
The Regia Marina has three first class cruisers in three classes - Marco Polo, a large first class cruiser roughly comparable to our Cressy class cruisers; Vettor Pisani, a mid-size first class cruiser roughly comparable to our Euralus class cruisers; and Francesco Ferruccio, a small first class cruiser intermediate between our Euryalus and Calliope class cruisers. All three of these have impressive 7" secondary batteries, but consultation with ship design experts leads Central Command to believe that the armor protecting these batteries is thin or nonexistent, which may make these batteries a liability for the Italian cruisers. Nevertheless, due to their heavier main battery and large and heavy secondary battery, these ships are considered somewhat dangerous to our Euryalus class cruisers, and caution is advised in engagements between the Italian first class cruisers and our Euryalus class cruisers.
Vettor Pisani is believed to be in the North Atlantic at present and may be intended for use as a heavy surface raider; Marco Polo and Francesco Ferruccio were last reported in the Mediterranean with the Italian battle line.
Second Class, Third Class, and Scout Cruisers
The Regia Marina has four small second class or scout cruisers - Nino Bixio, a 4000t 22kn second class cruiser armed with ten 4" and four 3" guns, believed to be stationed in the Mediterranean; Marsala, a 3900t 22kn second class cruiser armed with ten 4" and four 3" guns, believed to be the flagship of the Red Sea Flotilla; Brindisi, a 3400t 22kn scout cruiser armed with eight 4" and two 3" guns, believed to be assigned to the Italian battle fleet; and Bari, a 3100t 21kn second class cruiser armed with eight 5" guns, believed to be assigned to the Italian battle fleet. Central Command believes that the primary threat posed by all four of these ships is in their potential use as light surface raiders, and does not consider Nino Bixio, Marsala, or Brindisi to be a serious threat to our Calliope class cruisers. Bari, with its eight 5" guns, is regarded as somewhat dangerous, but not concerningly so, especially considering the poor reputation of Italian 5" guns.
Torpedo Boats and Torpedo Boat Destroyers
The Regia Marina has eight torpedo boat destroyers in three classes - the two-ship Nembo class, armed with two 3" and four 2" guns, carrying a pair of torpedo tubes, and reputedly capable of 28 knots; the two-ship Espero class, which replaces the two 3" guns of the Nembo class with a single 4" gun and loses a knot of speed but is otherwise identical; and the four-ship Lanciere class, essentially a repeat of the Nembo class. The Regia Marina also has a single two-ship class of ocean-going torpedo boats - the Borea class, armed with two 3" guns and carrying four torpedo tubes. One Nembo and both Espero class torpedo boat destroyers are thought to be assigned to the Red Sea Flotilla, and one Borea class ocean-going torpedo boat is thought to be accompanying Vettor Pisani in Northern Europe. The remainder of the Regia Marina's torpedo boats and torpedo boat destroyers are believed to be assigned to various flotillas defending the Italian boot, particularly in the Adriatic.
Central Command does not regard any of these vessels as being particularly threatening, but does advise that in the event of war ships exercise caution in low visibility conditions.
In the Event of War
Central Command feels that three to six Howe class battleships, one Cressy class first class cruiser, and one Calliope class second class cruiser as well as any torpedo boat destroyers and minesweepers not needed for coastal patrol work, should be transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet upon the outbreak of war or shortly beforehand (though it does not believe that tensions with Italy are as yet high enough to demand an immediate transfer). In combination with the existing Mediterranean squadron, this force should be sufficient to enforce a blockade and dominate the Regia Marina in Mediterranean waters. It may also be desirable to reinforce the East Indies Squadron to support an invasion of Eritrea and deny Italian raiders a base of operations from which to threaten our trade in the Indian Ocean, although the Central Command regards the existing East Indies Squadron as sufficient for the requirements of a war with Italy.
Central Command does not regard the Regia Marina as a significant threat - whether short or long term - to our strategic objectives in the Central Command area or elsewhere, and as such does not regard significant losses as justifiable even in exchange for the total destruction of the Italian fleet. It is therefore recommended that a degree of caution be exercised in all engagements with Italian warships; while opportunities to destroy Italian warships should not be passed up lightly, neither should great risks be taken to achieve such a result. Night-time and foul weather actions - especially those involving capital ships - should be avoided where possible.
War Objectives
Central Command feels that the only long-term strategic objective which could be served by a war with Italy is the removal of the Italian presence on the Indian Ocean, and therefore recommends the seizure of Eritrea either by invasion or at the peace table. While the seizure of Sardinia would have a greater immediate impact on Italian finances, Central Command does not feel that Sardinia is either necessary or particularly worth having as a base for the Mediterranean Fleet and feels that reparations and the removal of the Italian presence in the Indian Ocean would be of greater long-term value to the Royal Navy and Great Britain.
Battle Line
According to our best intelligence, the Regia Marina's two battleships - the Napoli and the Regina Margerita, both of the Napoli class - have the armament and armor to match our Howe class battleships, but are somewhat smaller and two knots slower. A large tertiary battery of 3" guns should make it difficult to successfully execute torpedo boat attacks against these vessels, though our Derwent class torpedo boat destroyers are not particularly well suited to carrying out such attacks anyways.
Two additional battleships of a new class (Benedetto Brin), specifications unknown, are under construction and expected to commission some time in 1901. Best guess is that these are in essence repeats of the existing Napoli class battleships, though the reputedly lower displacement suggests that some corners were cut - possibly a lighter secondary battery or slightly thinner armor.
First Class Cruisers
The Regia Marina has three first class cruisers in three classes - Marco Polo, a large first class cruiser roughly comparable to our Cressy class cruisers; Vettor Pisani, a mid-size first class cruiser roughly comparable to our Euralus class cruisers; and Francesco Ferruccio, a small first class cruiser intermediate between our Euryalus and Calliope class cruisers. All three of these have impressive 7" secondary batteries, but consultation with ship design experts leads Central Command to believe that the armor protecting these batteries is thin or nonexistent, which may make these batteries a liability for the Italian cruisers. Nevertheless, due to their heavier main battery and large and heavy secondary battery, these ships are considered somewhat dangerous to our Euryalus class cruisers, and caution is advised in engagements between the Italian first class cruisers and our Euryalus class cruisers.
Vettor Pisani is believed to be in the North Atlantic at present and may be intended for use as a heavy surface raider; Marco Polo and Francesco Ferruccio were last reported in the Mediterranean with the Italian battle line.
Second Class, Third Class, and Scout Cruisers
The Regia Marina has four small second class or scout cruisers - Nino Bixio, a 4000t 22kn second class cruiser armed with ten 4" and four 3" guns, believed to be stationed in the Mediterranean; Marsala, a 3900t 22kn second class cruiser armed with ten 4" and four 3" guns, believed to be the flagship of the Red Sea Flotilla; Brindisi, a 3400t 22kn scout cruiser armed with eight 4" and two 3" guns, believed to be assigned to the Italian battle fleet; and Bari, a 3100t 21kn second class cruiser armed with eight 5" guns, believed to be assigned to the Italian battle fleet. Central Command believes that the primary threat posed by all four of these ships is in their potential use as light surface raiders, and does not consider Nino Bixio, Marsala, or Brindisi to be a serious threat to our Calliope class cruisers. Bari, with its eight 5" guns, is regarded as somewhat dangerous, but not concerningly so, especially considering the poor reputation of Italian 5" guns.
Torpedo Boats and Torpedo Boat Destroyers
The Regia Marina has eight torpedo boat destroyers in three classes - the two-ship Nembo class, armed with two 3" and four 2" guns, carrying a pair of torpedo tubes, and reputedly capable of 28 knots; the two-ship Espero class, which replaces the two 3" guns of the Nembo class with a single 4" gun and loses a knot of speed but is otherwise identical; and the four-ship Lanciere class, essentially a repeat of the Nembo class. The Regia Marina also has a single two-ship class of ocean-going torpedo boats - the Borea class, armed with two 3" guns and carrying four torpedo tubes. One Nembo and both Espero class torpedo boat destroyers are thought to be assigned to the Red Sea Flotilla, and one Borea class ocean-going torpedo boat is thought to be accompanying Vettor Pisani in Northern Europe. The remainder of the Regia Marina's torpedo boats and torpedo boat destroyers are believed to be assigned to various flotillas defending the Italian boot, particularly in the Adriatic.
Central Command does not regard any of these vessels as being particularly threatening, but does advise that in the event of war ships exercise caution in low visibility conditions.
In the Event of War
Central Command feels that three to six Howe class battleships, one Cressy class first class cruiser, and one Calliope class second class cruiser as well as any torpedo boat destroyers and minesweepers not needed for coastal patrol work, should be transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet upon the outbreak of war or shortly beforehand (though it does not believe that tensions with Italy are as yet high enough to demand an immediate transfer). In combination with the existing Mediterranean squadron, this force should be sufficient to enforce a blockade and dominate the Regia Marina in Mediterranean waters. It may also be desirable to reinforce the East Indies Squadron to support an invasion of Eritrea and deny Italian raiders a base of operations from which to threaten our trade in the Indian Ocean, although the Central Command regards the existing East Indies Squadron as sufficient for the requirements of a war with Italy.
Central Command does not regard the Regia Marina as a significant threat - whether short or long term - to our strategic objectives in the Central Command area or elsewhere, and as such does not regard significant losses as justifiable even in exchange for the total destruction of the Italian fleet. It is therefore recommended that a degree of caution be exercised in all engagements with Italian warships; while opportunities to destroy Italian warships should not be passed up lightly, neither should great risks be taken to achieve such a result. Night-time and foul weather actions - especially those involving capital ships - should be avoided where possible.
War Objectives
Central Command feels that the only long-term strategic objective which could be served by a war with Italy is the removal of the Italian presence on the Indian Ocean, and therefore recommends the seizure of Eritrea either by invasion or at the peace table. While the seizure of Sardinia would have a greater immediate impact on Italian finances, Central Command does not feel that Sardinia is either necessary or particularly worth having as a base for the Mediterranean Fleet and feels that reparations and the removal of the Italian presence in the Indian Ocean would be of greater long-term value to the Royal Navy and Great Britain.
As the first game suffered from a lengthy set - up process which killed a lot of its momentum, I would like to specify the following, unless of course there are any strong objections:
The game will be played on very large fleet size with historical resources and standard technology; the fleet size is selected in order to maximise the opportunities for ships to be designed, construction programmes to be debated, battle-orders to be drawn up, and so on.
We will play as either the Royal Navy or United States Navy, again to maximise the scope of the game in terms of design and construction, and to provide the greatest variety of theatre commands for players to adopt.
We will play with an auto - generated legacy fleet, in order to side - step the arduous set - up process of the last game.
I would personally like to use seawolf 's excellent (and arguably mandatory) higher / realistic speeds mod, and I'd be open to the idea of running a 1920 start with his equally excellent Historical Legacy Fleets mod.
So, if you're interested in joining the game, please place your vote for the following ballots:
Navy Poll: CLOSED
strawpoll.com/9pse6s9f
Start Date Poll: CLOSED
strawpoll.com/3sdhs55s
Higher / Realistic Speeds Mod: CLOSED
strawpoll.com/dwr833ay
And please also let me know if you'd like to join the Design Board, Construction Board, or the Theatre Command roster (the assignment of commands will obviously have to wait until the nation is chosen.) And, if you have any suggestions for the formation of an entirely new committee, feel free - the more the merrier!
